Headline belies paper's own stories

The headline in the Nov. 9 edition astounded me: "Ring it up for schools," followed by "New homes deliver windfall for District 158."

How can the Daily Herald print a headline that is so misleading after citing so many studies that residential growth does not pay for itself when it comes to schools?

There is no "windfall" once the students from these homes enter the school system. The impact fees and taxes don't come close to paying for new students.

Further, the article goes on to state that Hampshire will hold a portion of impact fees until they approve the district's intended use of the money. This illustrates exactly what is wrong with villages setting school impact fees. They undercharge the fees , and then try to dictate their use by another taxing body that the village impacted by approving development in the first place. It would be hard to think of a more warped system.

It would be helpful if those who wrote for the Daily Herald had enough history and personal property tax bill experience to understand there is no "windfall" from any of these developments.

What will the headline be when the districts involved (158 and 300) need another referendum to pay for new schools? Will it be quite so joyous?

Jeff Seiler

Sleepy Hollow